NSW Caselaw
Reported Decision : 113 A Crim R 190
New South Wales Court of Criminal Appeal
CITATION : REGINA v MARSHALL [2000] NSWCCA 210 FILE NUMBER(S) : CCA 60474/99 HEARING DATE(S) : 15 May 2000 JUDGMENT DATE : 15 May 2000
PARTIES : Regina v Robert John Marshall JUDGMENT OF : Spigelman CJ at 1,41,42,55; Heydon JA at 40,53; James J at 39,54
LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : District Court LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 96/41/0267; 96/41/0268 LOWER COURT JUDICIAL Twigg DCJ OFFICER :
COUNSEL : G P Craddock (Appellant) L M B Lamprati (Respondent) SOLICITORS : T A Murphy (Appellant) S E O'Connorr (Respondent) CATCHWORDS : EVIDENCE - exclusion of identification evidence when accused seen to be in custody - displacement effect - Evidence Act 1995, s137 - CRIMINAL LAW - sentencing - correct application of totality LEGISLATION CITED : Crimes Act 1900 Evidence Act 1995 Alexander v The Queen (1979-1980) 145 CLR 395 CASES CITED: R v Blick [2000] NSWCCA 61 R v Carusi (1997) 92 A Crim R 52 R v Tugaga (1994) 74 A Crim R 190 DECISION : Appeal against conviction allowed; Verdict of acquittal entered; Leave to appeal against sentence granted, but appeal dismissed
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
60474/99
SPIGELMAN CJ HEYDON JA JAMES J
Monday 15 May 2000
REGINA v Robert John MARSHALL
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate